Hindawi

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

Volume 2018, Article ID 2346598, 13 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2346598

Research Article
Optimal Design Parameters of a Percussive Drilling System for
Efficiency Improvement

Changheon Song,1,2 Jintai Chung,2 Jae-Sang Cho,3 and Yun-Joo Nam 1

1
Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, Gyeongsan-si, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Hanyang University, Ansan-si, Republic of Korea
3
R&D Center, Soosan Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., Hwaseong-si, Republic of Korea

Correspondence should be addressed to Yun-Joo Nam; yjnam@kitech.re.kr

Received 16 June 2017; Revised 9 August 2017; Accepted 10 October 2017; Published 5 February 2018

Academic Editor: Fernando Lusquiños

Copyright © 2018 Changheon Song et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.

This paper aims to determine the optimal design parameters for percussive drilling systems considering the bit-rock interaction.
First, the motion dynamics of a bit impacted by a dropped piston are modeled by impact stress propagation and a rock-breaking
mechanism representing the penetration resistance coefficient and unloading constant. Next, the damping vibration behavior of
the bit is investigated considering the impact duration and the rock loading/unloading condition. In addition, the proposed
dynamics are simplified by adopting two dimensionless parameters representing the bit-piston mass ratio and the rock-piston
stiffness ratio. Finally, the drilling efficiency, defined by the energy transmitted from the piston to the rock, is presented in terms of
the proposed parameters. The use of optimal design parameters for percussive drilling systems improved the drilling efficiency.
These results are applicable to the design and performance estimation of down-the-hole and top-hammer systems.

1. Introduction repeated impacts is then converted into wave energy, which

Drilling equipment is the collective term used for machines
that apply impact and rotation forces to drill (for the most
part) surfaces and blastholes, and it is classified as top-
hammer drilling (THD), down-the-hole (DTH) drilling,
and rotary drilling (RD) rigs, depending on the operating
method (Figure 1). In general, THD is used mostly for
mining and civil blasting works, where the rig drills into the
earth usually to a depth of 1–20 m and at most 40 m; DTH is
used mainly for groundwater development and can create
holes to a maximum depth of 4000 m; and RD bores the
deepest holes, most commonly for petroleum gas extraction
and geothermal development, being propelled by its own
weight to reach depths of up to 10,000 m [1].
Simply put, a percussive drilling mechanism utilizes the
percussive energy resulting from the repeated impact of the
drifter (THD rigs) or the DTH hammer (DTH rigs) and the
feed force and rotation force that are transmitted to the drill
bit through the drill rod. The energy generated from the
is transmitted to the rock via the drill bit. Finally, the drill bit,
now with enough impact energy for drilling, cuts into and
crushes the rock. The rate at which the impact-generated
energy in a percussive drilling system is transmitted (i.e., the
drilling efficiency) is determined by complex effects such as
drilling rod, coupling sleeve, the compressive strength of the
rock, and interactions between the drill bit and the rock.
Therefore, certain drilling methods are highly efficient, with
high rates of penetration, when drilling soft rock (uniaxial
compressive strength, UCS, < 20 MPa) or medium hard rock
(UCS 50–120 MPa), but the efficiency decreases when
drilling very hard rock (UCS > 200 MPa) [2].
There are numerous previous studies regarding drill bit,
rock drilling, the transmission of impact energy, and drilling
efficiency. Hustrulid and Fairhurst [3–6] investigated energy
transmission between the drill steel and rock and measured
the specific energy resulting from the impact force.
Chiang and Elias [7] used the finite element method
(FEM) to study factors such as energy transmission,
2 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
Feed
Drifter
Air flow
Piston Percussion
Drilling rod
Coupling
DTH hammer
sleeve
Rotation
Percussion
Air flow
Piston
Rock
Rock particle + air flow
Drill bit
(a) (b)
Figure 1: Drilling mechanisms of two types of percussive drilling
system: (a) top-hammer drilling and (b) down-the-hole drilling
(modified from Song et al. [1]).
interactions between the drill bit and rock, and the rock
penetration process, which are important in the research and
evaluation of drill equipment. Song et al. [1] proposed
optimal design factors and range for top-hammer drill bit
based on multiphase flow simulation and response surface
methodology (RSM). Also, Song et al. [8] designed a lab-
scale testing system to test drilling performance of a drill bit
and investigated the effect of bit design factors on the
performance of drilling. Kwon et al. [9] validated the effect of
drill bit button arrangement on drilling efficiency through
a piston percussion test using piston drop testing system.
Lundberg and Okrouhlik [10] conducted a study of the 3D
effects on the efficiency of three representative methods for
percussive rock drilling (hammer drilling, DTH drilling, and
churn drilling) in which the efficiency of various drilling
methods was compared via 1D analysis and 3D FEM.
Lundberg and Collet [11] investigated the optimal incident
wave that maximizes the conversion efficiency of the wave
energy in the THD method. All these prior studies essentially
considered the transmission of impact energy from the
piston and drill bit. However, they failed to examine the
effect of the dynamic properties of the drill bit resulting from
the piston impact. Li et al. [2] analyzed the piston reaction
force characteristics of percussive hammers using the stress
wave propagation theory and the law of conservation of
energy and also studied the energy transmission efficiency of
a DTH hammer tool [12]. The studies by Li et al. [2, 12]
considered the dynamics of the drill bit resulting from the
piston impact. However, this consideration only addressed
the underdamped modes of the system response charac-
teristics that result from the rotational movement of the drill
bit and the effect of the rock. The work; therefore, neglected
the dynamics of the drill bit generated under various other
damped modes. The study was further limited in that it
employed an excessively large range of rock-to-piston
stiffness ratios (β) in the transmission efficiency of impact
energy. Overall, while many studies have investigated rock
drilling and the transmission of impact energy, few have
addressed the damping characteristics generated from the
penetration process, the rock effect, and the movement of
the drill parts or investigated the related drilling efficiency.
The analysis of behavior of drill bit should be performed for
the design and manufacturing of a percussive drilling system
with high drilling efficiency because the drilling efficiency and
the range of rock fracturing depend on movement charac-
teristics of drill bit during percussion and because drill bit also
percusses the rock directly, meaning the close relationship with
the delivery of percussion energy and drilling efficiency.
This study aimed to identify design parameters that could
optimize the drilling efficiency in a percussive drilling system,
while taking dynamic drill bit-rock interactions resulting
from the piston impact into consideration. Drilling dynamic
models (i.e., dynamic models of the drill bit) were established
by introducing drill bit-rock interactions to determine the
rock-penetrating properties of the bit. This was done using
impact stress wave propagation theory, the penetration re-
sistance coefficient, and the unloading constant in relation to
the impacting piston and drill bit. The drilling dynamics was
established considering the movement of the drill bit induced
by piston impacts and the loading and unloading conditions
resulting from the effects of the rock.
The drilling dynamics proposed here employ two di-
mensionless parameters: the first (α) is related to the piston-
to-drill bit mass ratio and β (defined above) and the second is
β itself. This introduction is followed by a discussion of the
rate at which the impact energy is transmitted from the
piston to the rock during percussion (i.e., the drilling effi-
ciency). The drilling efficiency is the work completed by the
drill bit relative to the incident-stress wave that causes it to
crush the rock. We also analyzed the dynamics of the drill bit
with regard to dimensionless parameters and damping ratios
and considered impact-energy transmission rates given mr
(the piston-to-drill bit mass ratio) and β. Combinations of
parameters to maximize the efficiency of a percussive drilling
system are proposed for various rock strengths.
To that end, Section 2 of this paper proposes a drilling
dynamic model for a percussive drilling system that takes into
account the dynamic properties of the drill bit, and with
consideration to the theory of stress-wave propagation via
piston impact. Drill bit behaviors and response characteristics
observed during the percussion process (i.e., over, critical, and
underdamped modes) involving the piston, the bit, and the
rock via the parameters α and β are discussed. The physical
meaning was analyzed by vertical development of di-
mensionless parameters (i.e., α and β). The system responses
of drill bit to the piston percussion were extended to six
conditions depending on the presence of incident stress wave
and loading or unloading condition. The typical motion of
drill bits involves four conditions. However, this study ex-
panded them into six conditions. The response characteristics
resulting from the rock and the movement of the drill bit were
also analyzed to investigate the efficiency or the transfer rate
of the percussive energy from the piston to rock.
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 3

The energy transmission efficiency via the impact of the

percussive drilling system is examined in Section 3. Section 4 Piston
mp, Lp, Ap,, c
discusses the combinations of parameters that might opti-
mize the drilling efficiency given the dynamic drill bit
characteristics and rock stiffness (i.e., β). Conclusions are
presented in Section 5. 

h0
2. Dynamic Model of a Percussive Drilling
System e h
2.1. Mechanism of Percussive Drilling. Figures 1(a) and 1(b) i
illustrate the working principles, or drilling mechanisms, of
percussive drilling systems. In each case, the drill bit is
propelled into the rock by percussion, feed, and rotation Bit mb
forces that are transmitted via the drifter or hammer. After
receiving impact energy from the drill bit, the rock develops r
cracks that form a network and eventually break it. The
crushed rock then undergoes further splitting via the ro- Button
tation force and secondary impacts until it becomes powder. Rock Crushed zone
The rock powder is discharged to the outside by compressed Crack
air supplied through a flushing duct located inside the drill
bit, thus enabling the drill to proceed further [1]. Figure 2: Schematic rock fracture mechanism by percussive
drilling (modified from Cho et al. [13]).

2.2. Bit Motion and Stress Wave Propagation. Figure 2 il-
lustrates the principles of impact and rock penetration by
a percussive drilling system.
The piston mass, length, cross-sectional area, descending
speed, density, and longitudinal wave velocity are designated as
mp, Lp, Ap, v, ρ, and c, respectively. The underlying assumptions
were that the drill bit remains immobile on the surface and that
the diameters of the drill bit and the piston are equal. Also, the
effects of buttons embedded in the bit were ignored.
The following equation expresses the motion of the drill bit
resulting from the force applied to it by the piston [12]:
d2 u
mb  A σ i + σ r  − F, (1)
dt2
where u is the penetration depth (displacement) of the drill
bit, the second term is the force applied to the drill bit when
the impact is exerted upon it, F is the force generated at the
rock-bit interface (i.e., the penetration force), and A is the
cross-sectional area of the drill bit and piston.
According to the relation between the dynamic stress and
velocity of a mass in an elastic body system, the velocity of the
contacting end of the bit can be expressed as follows [2]:
du σ i σ r
 − , (2)
dt ρc ρc
here σ i and σ r are the incident and reflected stress waves,
respectively. The effect of the secondary incident stress wave
was not considered. For analytical simplification, the piston and
the drill bit were assumed to be of the same diameter and
material; both were assumed to have a rectangular pulse with
a duration of incident stress wave τ and an amplitude of 0.5 ρcv.
Typically, nearly all the percussion impact energy is con-
verted into wave energy. The piston hitting the drill bit generates
an incident stress wave (σ i), at which point a portion of the
impact energy is transmitted to the rock via the drill bit,
crushing the rock [11]. The remaining energy is converted into
a reflected stress wave (σ r) and is used to increase the speed of
the piston ascending from the drill bit top to speed ve (Figure 2)
[2]. The reflected stress wave can in turn be transmitted to the
piston and drill bit in the form of a secondary incident stress
wave at the piston-bit interface and at the drill bit-rock interface.
The secondary incident stress wave in a percussive
drilling system has been reported not to contribute to the
crushing of rocks [11]; therefore, it would not significantly
affect the energy transmission efficiency. Furthermore,
a study of drilling speed found the incident stress wave to
have an insignificant effect on the impact force and pen-
etration characteristics [14].
The interaction between the drill bit and rock (the
force-penetration relationship, Figure 3) is expressed in (3)
[2], which separately considers the loading and unloading
conditions: k is the rock penetration coefficient index, c is
the unloading constant, and τ is the duration of the in-
cident stress wave:
 ku(loading),

F (3)
cku − ckuf (unloading).
The duration of the incident stress wave τ generated by
the impact of the piston can be expressed with respect to
time t in two scenarios, as defined in (4) [2]. The first
scenario involves transmission of an incident stress wave,
whereas the second does not:



1

 2 ρcv, for (0 < t ≤ τ),
σ i (t)  

(4)


0, for (t > τ).
4 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

F When unloading, the drill-bit equation of motion is

defined by (9). The ζ 2 term is given in (10):
ρcA 2A kuf
u€ +  u_ + c u   σ i + c
k
, (9)
Fm mb mb mb mb

ζ 2    √ . (10)

4α(βτ) 1
2 c(4α)(βτ)2 cα

k
The dimensionless parameters α and β defined in (8) and
k (10) can be expressed as follows (extended from (2), (12)):
4mb k 4mb 4mb
 2 b β,
m
α ·  ·β
ρcA ρcA ρcAτ 2mp LP cLP Aβ mp

kτ k2Lp c 2kLh
0 uf um u
2kLp Lp
 2k   2 .
k
β   2 
Figure 3: Force versus penetration relationship representing the ρcA ρcA ρc A ρAEp ρ Ep A kp
bit–rock interaction curve.
(11)

For the loading condition, we obtain the following As explained earlier, the typical motion of drill bits in-
equations [2]: volves four conditions. However, this study considers six
conditions, as listed in Table 1 (Appendix A), and includes the
A σ i + σ r   F, loading/unloading condition and the presence or absence of
an incident stress wave. To investigate the rate at which the
du σ i σ r impact energy is transmitted from the piston to the rock
 − , (5)
dt ρc ρc during the percussion process (i.e., the drilling efficiency), this
study first considered the response characteristics resulting
ku  F, from the motion of the drill bit during the percussion process
and the effect of the rock. The aim was to find the response
where the initial condition is t  0 and F  0. characteristics that lead to the rock’s maximum crushing
For the unloading condition, the equations can be expressed displacement, um. The study also defined the motion of
as follows [2]: percussive drill bits resulting from the impact of the piston
A σ i + σ r   F, and analyzed their behavior given the system responses. The
drill bit-rock interaction was considered here, including the
du σ i σ r force–penetration relationship for the rock.
 − , (6) Table 1 presents the relationships between loading and
dt ρc ρc
unloading and the duration of stress wave τ in percussive
drilling systems. In Table 1, τ is the duration of the incident
cku − cku  F,
stress wave being transmitted to the drill bit via the piston
where the initial condition is t  τ and F(t)  lim F(t). during loading; it is referenced relative to the time t. The
t→τ loading condition can be defined in two ways: 0 < t ≤ τ or
The response characteristics of a drill bit (i.e., the damped
τ < t ≤ tm , where the latter expression means that τ arrived
characteristics) can be under, critical, or overdamped given its
sooner than t; that is, the transmission of τ was complete, but
motion equation, that is, (1). The movement of the drill bit
the loading continued owing to the inertial effect of the drill
under loading and unloading conditions was examined. The
bit. If τ > tm, the drill bit arrived at um before the transmission
damping characteristics of a percussive drilling system are
of τ to the bit had completed and indicates the time when the
categorized depending on the damping ratio (ζ) and the
system switches to the unloading condition.
dimensionless parameter α.
In summary, in Cases 1 to 5 in Table 1, the motion of the
When loading, the equation of motion for the drill bit is
drill bit following the piston impact continues until the
defined as follows:
loading condition applying external force to the rock reaches
ρcA 2A τ < t ≤ tm . After that time, the stress wave arriving at the drill
u€ +  u_ +  u   σ i ,
k
(7) bit is converted into unloading at τ > tm , provided that the
mb mb mb
rock displacement occurs sooner than tm, that is, the
where the response-characteristics determinant ζ 1 is maximum time of arrival. However, the τ in Case 6 rep-
resents a stress wave that is still progressing while the rock
ζ 1    √ .
4α(βτ) 1 displacement owing to the drill bit has already reached its
α (8)
2 4α(βτ)2 maximum; that is, unloading occurs during τ.
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 5

Table 1: Expansion conditions for dynamic drill-bit properties for loading, unloading, and stress-wave duration, τ.
Initial conditions
0<t≤τ τ < t ≤ tm t > tm
Case no. σ i � 0.5ρcv σi � 0 σi � 0
F � ku F � ku F � cku − ckuf
u0 � 0, u_ 0 � 0 u0 � u(τ), u_ 0 � u(τ)
_ u0 � um , u_ 0 � 0

1 α < c1

2 α � c1

1
3 c<α<1

4 α�1
5 α > 1, tm > τ

0 < t ≤ tm tm < t ≤ τ t>τ

6 σ i � 0.5ρcv σ i � 0.5ρcv σi � 0
F � ku F � cku − ckuf F � F � cku − ckuf
u0 � 0, u_ 0 � 0 u0 � um , u_ 0 � 0 u0 � u(τ), u_ 0 � u(τ)
_

2.3. Results of Bit Motion Analysis. Numerical simulations on
a dynamic model of drill bit properties were run for the six
cases and used the dynamic drill bit properties during induced
percussion (Section 2), the drill bit-rock interaction model,
and the dimensionless parameters α and β.
Figure 4 shows the simulation results (ζ) for different
conditions (α, Table 1) and the effect of loading and
unloading. The mass ratio, mr, was 1, and the same con-
ditions were applied to the piston mass and drill bit mass.
Figure 4(a) shows an overview of the response characteristics
for all six cases. The initial black part of each curve refers to
the sustained effect of τ; the red parts indicate the loading
condition that marks the effect of drill bit inertia, and the
blue parts represent the transition to unloading. Figure 4(b)
shows Case 1, where a single-incident stress wave indicates
the drill bit displacement at u(τ) and the drill bit arrival at um
as an overdamped motion due to the loading continuing
owing to external forces and inertia. Later, in the transition
to unloading, characteristic overdamped motion appears,
and there is no convergence to uf (Figure 3).
Case 2 (Figure 4(c)) appears similar to Case 1, but the bit
reaches um sooner owing to τ and the effect of drill bit
inertia. As the system transitions to unloading and converges
to uf, it shows critical damping. Case 3 (Figure 4(d)) shows
a longer τ compared with Case 2 because of its quicker
arrival at um. During unloading, it converges to uf as
underdamped motion. Case 4 (Figure 4(e)) has the drill bit
displaced at u(τ) due to τ, and it arrives at um as critically
damped motion owing to continued loading resulting from
the inertia of the drill bit. The subsequent unloading phase
converges to uf as underdamped motion.
Case 5 (Figure 4(f)) has a longer τ than the preceding four
cases and also reaches um sooner. Furthermore, all its zones
showed underdamped motion. Finally, in Case 6 (Figure 4
(g)), the rock displacement has already reached its maximum
while τ is still in progress. This means that unloading begins
during τ. Underdamped motion was observed in all zones.
Overall, the longer the duration of τ, the shorter the
loading time and the sooner the um is reached, owing to drill
bit inertia. Table 2 summarizes the damping characteristics for
the loading and unloading conditions and presents the as-
sociated damping mode that arrives at um. Cases 1–3 show
overdamping, Case 4 critical damping, and Cases 5 and 6
underdamping. The underdamped mode showed the
highest responsiveness, indicating the fastest trans-
mission time of τ. The results show that increasing the
τ-transmission time decreased the loading effect resulting
from drill bit inertia and led to faster responses. The drill
bit inertial effect is inversely proportional to τ.
3. Energy Transmission in Percussive Drilling
System
In Section 2, we examined the response characteristics of
drill bits that can arrive at um, which is the maximum drilling
displacement of rocks. Based on the examined character-
istics in Section 3, we calculate the efficiency of percussive
drilling systems and discuss the combinations of parameters
that could maximize it.
3.1. Energy Transmission Efficiency. In a percussive drilling
system, the piston directly hits the drill bit at speed v (Figure 2).
For a transmitted impact energy, Ei, at the time of the piston
descending and hitting the drill bit, the final speed of the piston
immediately preceding the impact, v, can be expressed as
follows [2, 10]:
1/2
v �􏼠 􏼡 .
2Ei
(12)
mp
6 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

u u
Case 6
2.0 um 2.0
Case 5
Case 4
1.6 Case 3 1.6
Case 2
Case 1 u(ଯ)
1.2 1.2
uf uf
0.8 0.8
Overdamped motion

0.4 0.4

0.0 0.0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 t 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 t
ଯ tm

Loading by incident stress wave Loading by incident stress wave

Loading by inertia of bit Loading by inertia of bit
Unloading Unloading
(a) (b)
u u
um 2.0 um 2.0

1.6 1.6
Critically damped motion u(ଯ)
u(ଯ) Underdamped motion
1.2 1.2
uf uf
0.8 0.8
Overdamped motion Overdamped motion

0.4 0.4

0.0 0.0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 t 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 t
ଯ tm ଯ tm

Loading by incident stress wave Loading by incident stress wave

Loading by inertia of bit Loading by inertia of bit
Unloading Unloading
(c) (d)
Figure 4: Continued.
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 7

u u
um 2.0 um 2.0
Underdamped motion
1.6 u(ଯ) 1.6
u(ଯ)
Underdamped motion

1.2 1.2
uf uf
0.8
Critically damped motion
0.8

0.4 0.4

0.0 0.0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 t 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 t
ଯ tm ଯ tm

Loading by incident stress wave Loading by incident stress wave

Loading by inertia of bit Loading by inertia of bit
Unloading Unloading
(e) (f)

u
um
u(ଯ)
um Underdamped
u motion

2.0

1.6
0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 t
ଯ tm
1.2
uf
0.8

0.4

0.0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 t
Loading by incident stress wave
Loading by inertia of bit
Unloading
(g)

Figure 4: Results of the motion response of the bit for mr  1. (a) All cases. (b) Case 1. (c) Case 2. (d) Case 3. (e) Case 4. (f) Case 5. (g) Case 6.

The initial height h0 is v2/2g, and the rebound, eh, can  Fmax 
2
kum 2
be defined as the ratio between the initial height and the η  , (14)
ρALh v2 ρALh v2 k
piston’s postimpact rebound height, h. These are
expressed as follows [2]: Which can be expressed as follows through dimensional
analysis:
h v2e 2
eh   . (13) η  u2m . (15)
h0 v 2 β
The efficiency, η, of impact energy transmission is de- The value um during loading can be obtained from (7),
fined as the ratio between the kinetic energy generated from the equation of motion for the drill bit. The obtained um can
the impact of the piston and the energy transmitted to the be expressed as in (16) for each damping mode, where the
rock [12] and is given as initial conditions are 0 < t ≤ τ, F  kui , u0  0, and u_ 0  0:
8 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

Table 2: Dynamic drill-bit properties for loading, unloading, and τ, and the damping modes capable of reaching um.
Damping modes capable of reaching um
Case no. Conditions
0<t≤τ τ < t ≤ tm t > tm
1 α < c1 Over Over∗ Over
2 α � c1 Over Over∗ Critical
1
3 c<α<1 Over Over∗ Under
4 α�1 Critical Critical∗ Under
5 α > 1, tm > τ Under Under∗ Under
0 < t ≤ tm tm < t ≤ τ t>τ
6 α > 1, tm < τ
Under∗ Under Under
∗
Damping modes capable of reaching um.

√���� √����
⎪
⎧
⎪ 1 − α − 1 −(2/α)(β/τ)(1+√�� � 1 + 1 − α −(2/α)(β/τ)(1−√���
⎪
⎪ 􏼢 √���� · e √���� · e 􏼣(overdamped),
⎪
1−α )t 1−α )t
+
⎪
1 −
⎪
⎪
2 α−1 2 1−α
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨
um (t)⎪ 1 − e−2(β/τ)t · 􏼢2 t + 1􏼣(critical damped),
β
⎪
(16)
⎪
⎪
τ
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ √���� √����
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ · 􏼢√���� sin􏼠
1 2 α−1 β
t􏼡 + cos􏼠
2 α−1 β
t􏼡􏼣(underdamped).
⎩ 1−e
−2(β/τ)t
α−1 α τ α τ

The initial conditions are 0 < t ≤ τ, F � kui , ui � 0,

Moreover, for tm < τ, um is expressed as follows: and u_ i � 0.
√���� Next, the displacement value uf during unload-
⎣√����
um (t) � 1 − e−(2/α)(β/τ) · ⎡
1
sin􏼠
2 α−1 β
t􏼡 ing can be obtained via the equation of motion for a drill-
α−1 α τ bit (9), as shown in (18). The initial conditions
√����
(17) during unloading are t > τ, F � 0, u0 � u(τ), and
2 α − 1 β ⎤⎦ u_ 0 � u(τ):
+ cos􏼠 t􏼡 .
_
α τ

⎧
⎪
⎪ τ −(2/α)(1+√�� � √����
⎪ ���� 􏼢 􏼠 u 􏼡􏼣
α 2β 4β
⎪
1−α )t
⎪
√ · · (1 + ) +
⎪
e u 1 − α − u
_
⎪
0 0
ατ 0
⎪
4 1−α β ατ
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ τ −(2/α)(1−√�� � √����
⎪ ���� · 􏼢u 0 (1 − 1 − α ) − 􏼠u_ 0 + u 􏼡􏼣(overdamped),
α 2β 4β
⎪
1−α )t
√
⎪ 4 1−α β
− · e
⎪
⎪ ατ 0
⎪
ατ
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ −2(β/τ)t
⎨
· 􏼢􏼠u_ 0 + 2 u0 􏼡t − u0 􏼣(critical damped),
β
uf (t)⎪e
⎪
(18)
⎪
τ
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ √���� √����
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎣
⎡
⎪ · 􏼠 √���� 􏼡u_ 0 · sin􏼠 􏼡 t + √���� u0 · sin􏼠 t􏼡
α τ 2 α−1 β 1 2 α−1 β
⎪
⎪
−(2/α)(β/τ)t
e
⎪
⎪
⎪
2 α−1 β α τ α−1 α τ
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ √����
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2 α − 1 β ⎤⎦
⎩ + u0 · cos􏼠 α
⎪
τ
t􏼡 (underdamped).
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 9

2.0
mr = 0.5
1.8

Dimensionless penetration (Um)

4
mr = 2 1.6
Section B
mr = 1 1.4
Damped modes

3 1.2
mr = 0.5
mr = 1 1.0
u∞
2 0.8
0.6
Section A
1 0.4
0.2
0.0
0
0 5 10 15 20
0 5 10 15 20


mr = 0.5
mr = 0.5
mr = 1
mr = 1 mr = 2
mr = 2
Figure 6: State of reaching drill bit dimensionless penetration Um
Figure 5: Damping mode capable of reaching maximum rock with respect to mass ratio, mr, and β.
fracture displacement um given the piston-to-bit mass ratio mr and β.
1: overdamped mode, 2: critically damped mode, 3: underdamped
mode, 4: special underdamped mode. The special underdamped mode refers to the case where
τ is faster than t, indicating that the drill bit can arrive at um
only via an incident stress wave. In this case, the bit reaches
The efficiency of the percussive drilling systems for given β
its maximum displacement and transitions to the unloading
can be calculated using (14–17). The factor um, which is
state while the transmission of τ is underway.
important to the efficiency calculations, is discussed in depth.
The damped mode of each mr shown in Figure 5 re-
veals that the underdamped mode is dominant of the
3.2. Results of Energy Transmission Efficiency. The results of effects. Also, overdamped and critical damped were ob-
simulations on the drill bit-rock interaction model shown in served, where β was low. This is possibly because of the
Figure 5 indicate the damped modes that can arrive at um (for effects of the internal energy (i.e., compression strength)
varying values of β) as the response by the drill bit at the time of of rock and the percussive energy. The overdamped and
piston impact. The damped mode is determined by ζ and α, critical damped were also observed. This is possibly be-
which indictate the system responses. Overdamped mode has cause of internal energy (i.e., compression strength) of
α < 1 and can be expressed as follows: rock and energy caused by percussion.
Figure 6 shows dimensionless time, tm  t/τ, capable of
2 β < 1,
mb
reaching Um for β and τ. In Section A of t > τ, the bit reaches
mh Um after termination of τ, and in Section B of t < τ, the bit
(19)
1 reaches Um before the termination of τ. The lower the mr and
β< .
2mr β, the faster the termination of τ, and increase in these
tended to make the duration of τ delivered to rock through
The critical damped mode has α  1 and is expressed as bit to increase proportionally to β. This suggests that the
follows: higher rock strength requires longer duration of τ for
drilling the rock.
2 β  1,
mb
mh Figure 7 shows dimensionless Um state defined as ratio
(20) um, a displacement um by β, and u∞ caused by incident stress
1 wave and loading condition. The prediction of displacement
β .
2mr of drill bit, drilling displacement, by characteristic of rock
was limited. This study, accordingly, judged the di-
The underdamped mode has α > 1 and is expressed as
mensionless drilling state, Um, only by using ratio u∞,
2 β > 1,
mb a displacement during loading and um considering inertia
mh caused during percussion (22):
(21)
1 um
β> , Um  , (22)
2mr u∞
where mb /mh  mr . where the u∞ only by loading is defined as follows:
10
0.0012
0.0010
Dimensionless time (tm)
0.0008
Section A
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
Section B
0.0000
0 5 10 15
 
mr = 0.5
mr = 1
mr = 2
Figure 7: Dimensionless time capable of reaching Um for an in-
cident stress-wave τ acting on the bit and β.
ρcA τ
u∞  v  v. (23)
k β
The effect of initial condition on u∞ decreased with the
increase in β. The um is determined by considering loading
condition and inertia effect, is affected by overresponse, and
decreases as β increases.
Section A refers to um < u∞, with only τ and loading
effect present (i.e., the condition for the normal state in the
initial mode): u∞ means only the τ effect resulting from
loading exists. Section B refers to um > u∞, a state in which
um can be reached through τ and loading is exceeded. This
section is where the drill bit inertia and underdamped
motion appear. The gradient of the curve for maximum
displacement of the bit varies with β, indicating that as the
rock strength increases, the displacement allowing fracture
decreases. Near value 2, β changes its gradient for maximum
displacement. This means that, in Section A, the rock is less
stiff than the piston owing to the rock-stiffness effect, and in
Section B, the rock is stiffer than the piston. β is defined as
the stiffness ratio between the rock and the piston, as in (11).
Hence, when β < 2, a condition is established for rock fracture
to occur, in that the piston stiffness exceeds the rock stiffness.
In examining um for piston-bit mass ratios of mr < 2, the
rock strength that can be defeated by τ occurring in the
initial loading tends to increase. This tendency is suspected
to result from the inertial effect of the mass of the bit. For
β > 4, the um gradient tended to decrease with increasing
mass of the bit. Hence, the efficiency is considered to de-
crease, which is attributed to the effect of the rock’s com-
pressive strength. The uniaxial compressive strength of very
hard rock is typically at least 200 MPa, while the tensile
strength of the H13 tool steels that are used mostly for
pistons (ASTM A681 and DIN EN ISO 4957) is known to be
at least 359–1170 MPa [15].
Given the steels generally used to make pistons, the
effective range of β is considered to be 0.34 < β < 1.12, which
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Efficiency
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1  = 1.8
0.0
20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
mr = 0.1 mr = 2
mr = 0.25 mr = 4
mr = 0.5 mr = 10
mr = 1
Figure 8: Drilling efficiency of percussive drilling systems with
respect to β and mr.
was calculated considering the strength ratio between the
hard rock and an H13 steel tool. Hence, the effective range of
β could be no greater than 2. Rocks with a stiffness ratio of
β > 2 might cause failure through the piston’s plastic de-
formation and fracture. This study examined the effective
interval of β and investigated the parameter combinations
giving high drilling efficiency in this interval.
Figure 8 illustrates the motion of the bit generated
during the percussion process and the energy transmission
rate (i.e., efficiency) for the response characteristics, τ, and
percussion impact. Analysis of mr found the maximum
drilling efficiency in interval 1 < β < 2, with a tendency ef-
ficiency decreasing after mr increased above a certain value.
This result was attributed to the tendency whereby increasing
mr converts the system’s dynamic response to τ due to the
piston from underdamped to overdamped. Furthermore,
increasing the mass of the bit can increase its internal energy
(i.e., friction energy) to above the piston transmitted energy
(i.e., kinetic and potential energy). Hence, the bit’s dynamic
response would be overdamped and could compromise
drilling efficiency. In other words, the heavier the bit, the
more delayed the response to percussion.
In Figure 8, the left side of red line (β 1.8) represents the
effect of only incident stress wave, meaning that the higher
the value in graph the higher the drilling efficiency in in-
cident stress wave. The right side of red line, representing
unloading behavior after reaching maximum efficiency in
incident stress wave, is affected by both brittleness char-
acteristics of rock and inertia effect of drill bit.
The piston should have twice the mass of the drill bit
(i.e., mr  0.5) for the most efficient drilling for β ≤ 2, which is
established to be the effective interval of β and corresponds
to both soft and hard rocks. Drilling stiffer rocks (2 < β < 4)
might be less efficient, but increasing mr to 1 would help
improve drilling efficiency.
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
4. Results and Discussion
This study defined equations for the motion of a drill bit
when struck by a piston and expanded the dynamic prop-
erties of the drill bit based on the conditions ζ and α. It also
analyzed the relationship between the bit dynamics and the
duration of the incident stress wave (τ). Underdamped drill
bits displayed the greatest responsiveness and the fastest
transmission of τ. Increasing the transmission of τ decreased
the loading effect due to the drill bit’s inertia but led to a fast
response. The inertial effect of the drill bit was confirmed to
be inversely proportional to the transmission of τ.
A percussive drilling system accomplishes its work via
the percussion impact of a piston. In the systems studied
here, τ ended more quickly with lower mr and β values; as
these values increased, the duration of τ transmitted to the
rock via the drill bit increased in proportion to β. The results
also showed that the maximum bit displacement (um) de-
creased as β increased. Analysis of the drilling dynamics
confirmed the effective intervals of β. With reference to the
rock strengths suggested by the International Society for
Rock Mechanics (ISRM), the effective interval of β is con-
sidered to be no greater than 2.
The main purpose of this study was to examine the
impact energy transmission rate and drilling efficiency in
a percussive drilling system (Figure 8). The results established
a mr value of 0.5 as the most efficient for rocks whose strength
corresponds to the interval β < 2. The improved drilling ef-
ficiency would lead to advantages such as reduced bit pro-
duction costs. Rocks stiffer than 2 < β < 4 can be most
efficiently drilled by selecting mr � 1.
The movement and response characteristics of bit during
percussion process, τ, and transfer rate of energy caused by
percussion, an efficiency, depend on mr and β, where in-
crease in mr leads to overdamping of bit movement char-
acteristics due to τ by piston and reduction in drilling
efficiency due to internal energy effect by mass of drill bit. As
the increase in mass of drill bit, for the section of 4 < β < 6,
the drilling efficiency of percussive drilling system decrease,
and for the very hard rock (UCS > 200 MPa) section of
4 < β < 6, it is considered that the reasonable applied mr of
drilling tool is 1 or 2.
This study neglected the effects of the secondary incident
stress wave and also the effect of buttons embedded in the
drill bit. Additionally, for analytical simplification, the piston
and drill bit were assumed to be of the same diameter and
material, and a rectangular pulse with an incident stress
wave of duration τ and amplitude 0.5ρcv was assumed. The
effect of the flexural stress wave depending on the config-
uration was not considered. These limitations of this paper
should be addressed in further investigations that take into
account the configuration of the piston and drill bit, the
effect of buttons, and the drilling efficiency given differing
shapes of the incident stress wave.
5. Conclusion
This paper aimed to identify the optimal design parameters
for percussive drilling systems by introducing a drill bit-rock
11
interaction model that could verify the bit’s motion during
percussion and the resulting damping characteristics. The
study analyzed drilling efficiency and drew the following
conclusions.
Percussive drilling systems have six dynamic drill bit
properties that can be expandable. This paper discussed the
physical meaning of the dimensionless parameters α and β.
Their values determined the damping characteristics that
can lead to the rock’s maximum fracture displacement. The
fastest response of τ was observed for underdamped drill-bit
motion.
Drilling was most efficient in the interval 1 < β < 4, where
increasing mr at a given β decreased drilling efficiency. The
value of mr for efficient drilling was determined by the rock
strength (i.e., β).
The results indicate that application of a piston-to-drill bit
mass ratio of 0.5 (i.e., a piston mass twice that of the drill bit
mass) to the rocks whose stiffness corresponds to β ≥ 2 would
likely be most efficient and also reduce drill bit production
costs. Furthermore, a selection of mr � 1 would be valid when
developing drill tools for boring complex rocks (1 < β < 4). At
β > 4, the best efficiency could be achieved when the bit mass
equals or exceeds the piston mass.
Appendix
Theoretical Case of Bit Motion Condition
(Drilling Dynamic Model)
This paper proposed six conditions for the dynamics of
a drill bit struck by a piston impact, as summarized
below. The damping conditions for the damping ratios
and α from the drill-bit equations of motion (7–9) are as
follows:
First, for the overdamped condition of ζ 1 > 1 and α < 1, τ
is transmitted to the drill bit, indicating loading. Equation
(7) can be expressed as in (A.1). The initial conditions are
0 < t ≤ τ, σ i � 0.5ρcv, F � ku, u0 � 0, and u_ 0 � 0.
u€ + 􏼠 􏼡u_ + 􏼠 􏼡u � 􏼠 􏼡v,
ρcA k ρcA
(A.1)
mb mb mb
where assuming the normal state, u can be calculated as
follows:
u �􏼒 􏼓v.
ρcA
(A.2)
k
Next, we examine the case where τ is complete and the
loading effect is sustained owing to external forces and drill-
bit inertia. Applying the conditions of τ < t ≤ tm , σ i � 0,
F � ku, u0 � u(τ), and u_ 0 � u(τ)
_ to (A.1) results in the
following expression:
u€ + 􏼠 􏼡u_ + 􏼠 􏼡u � 0,
ρcA k
(A.3)
mb mb
where u � 0. Last, we examine the unloading conditions of
tm < t, σ i � 0, F � cku − ckuf , u0 � um , and u_ 0 � 0. Apply-
ing these to (9) when unloading gives
12 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

where, u � 0. Last, we examine the unloading condition

u€ + 􏼠 􏼡u_ + c􏼠 􏼡u � c􏼠 􏼡uf ,
ρcA k k
(A.4) where tm < t, σ i � 0, F � cku − ckuf , u0 � um , and u_ 0 � 0.
mb mb mb
Equation (9) when unloading can be expressed as (A.4).
where bit displacement u � uf is used to indicate the rock’s In this case, the drill bit displacement u � uf is used to
fracture displacement. Furthermore, considering the bit’s indicate the rock’s fracture displacement. Furthermore,
damping ratio when unloading, its behavior can be ex- considering the damping ratio in the drill bit’s unloading,
pressed as the bit’s behavior can be expressed as
⎪
⎧
⎪ ⎪
⎧
⎪
1
⎪ ⎪
1
⎪ ⎪
ζ 2 > 1, α < (no case),
⎪
ζ 2 > 1, α < (over),
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
c
⎪
c
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ ⎨ 1
1 Damped mode � ⎪ ζ 2 � 1, α � (no case),
⎪
Damped mode � ⎪ ζ 2 � 1, α � (critical), (A.7)
⎪ ⎪
(A.5)
⎪ ⎪
c
⎪ ⎪
⎪
c
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎩ ζ 2 < 1, α > (under).
1
⎪
⎩ ζ 2 < 1, α > (under).
1
c
c
The third condition is the critically damped mode
Second, under critical damping where ζ 1 � 1 and α � 1, τ defined as α > 1. During drill bit unloading, c refers to the
is transmitted to the drill bit, indicating loading. Equation rock property effect and is always less than 1. Hence,
(7) can be expressed as in (A.1). The initial conditions are when unloading, no other cases but underdamping are
0 < t ≤ τ, σ i � 0.5ρcv, F � ku, u0 � 0, and u_ 0 � 0. allowed.
In this case, assuming the normal state, u can be cal- Next, the underdamped condition is where ζ 1 < 1 and
culated using (A.2): α > 1, and τ is slower than tm (the time at which the rock’s
The following is the case where τ is complete and the maximum fracture displacement is reached), that is, tm < τ.
loading effect is sustained owing to external forces and drill In this case, τ is transmitted to the drill bit, meaning
bit inertia. Applying the conditions of τ < t ≤ tm , σ i � 0, loading. Equation (7) can be expressed by (A.1). The initial
F � ku, u0 � u(τ), and u_ 0 � u(τ) _ to (A.1) give (A.3) where conditions are 0 < t ≤ tm , σ i � 0.5ρcv, F � ku, u0 � 0, and
u � 0. Last, we examine the unloading condition where u_ 0 � 0. Here, assuming the normal state, u can be calculated
tm < t, σ i � 0, F � cku − ckuf , u0 � um , and u_ 0 � 0. Equation as (A.2).
(9) when unloading can be expressed as (A.4). The following case is where conversion is made to
In this case, bit displacement u � uf is used to indicate the unloading after the drill bit reaches its maximum dis-
rock’s fracture displacement. Furthermore, considering the placement, but the incident stress wave is sustained. Ap-
bit’s damping ratio when unloading, its behavior follows plying the conditions of tm < t ≤ τ, σ i � 0.5ρcv,
⎪
⎧
⎪
F � cku − ckuf , u0 � um , and u_ 0 � 0 to (9) results in
⎪
1
⎪
⎪
ζ 2 > 1, α < (no case),
⎪
⎪
c
u€ + 􏼠 􏼡u_ + c􏼠 􏼡u � 􏼠 􏼡v + c􏼠 􏼡uf ,
k k
⎪
ρcA ρcA
⎪
⎪
(A.8)
⎪
⎪
mb mb mb mb
⎨ 1
Damped mode � ⎪ ζ 2 � 1, α � (no case),
⎪
(A.6)
⎪
where the definition of u � 1/c(ρcA/k)v + uf is possible.
⎪
c
⎪
⎪
⎪
Last, this unloading condition is where the incident
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
stress wave is resolved. When unloading the drill bit, using
⎪
⎩ ζ 2 < 1, α > (under).
1
the conditions t < τ, σ i � 0, F � cku − ckuf , u0 � u(τ), and
c
u_ 0 � u(τ)
_ allows (9) to be expressed as (A.4).
In this case, drill bit displacement u � uf is used to in-
The second condition of critical damping is defined as dicate the rock’s fracture displacement. The analysis of drill
α � 1. When unloading drill bits, c refers to the rock’s property bit dynamics showed that when loading transitions to
effect and is always less than 1. Hence, when unloading, no unloading in the underdamped condition, the dynamic
other cases but the underdamped mode are allowed. In other properties of the bit exist only in the underdamping mode.
words, when unloading in the critically damped mode owing
to the rock properties, the bit is always underdamped. Conflicts of Interest
The third condition is underdamping with ζ 1 < 1 and
α > 1. Here, τ is transmitted to the drill bit, meaning loading. The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Equation (7) can be expressed by (A.1). The initial conditions
are 0 < t ≤ τ, σ i � 0.5ρcv, F � ku, u0 � 0, and u_ 0 � 0. Where,
assuming the normal state, u can be calculated as (A.2). References
The following is the case where τ is complete, and the [1] C. H. Song, K. B. Kwon, J. Y. Park et al., “Optimum design of
loading effect is sustained owing to external forces and drill the internal flushing channel of a drill bit using RSM and CFD
bit inertia. Applying the conditions of τ < t ≤ tm , σ i � 0, simulation,” International Journal of Precision Engineering
F � ku, u0 � u(τ), and u_ 0 � u(τ)_ to (A.1) results in (A.3), and Manufacturing, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1041–1050, 2014.
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 13

[2] X. Li, G. Rupert, D. A. Summers, P. Santi, and D. Liu, “Analysis

of impact hammer rebound to estimate rock drillability,” Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2000.
[3] W. A. Hustrulid and C. Fairhurst, “A theoretical and ex-
perimental study of the percussive drilling of rock, part I:
theory of percussive drilling,” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts,
vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 311–333, 1971.
[4] W. A. Hustrulid and C. Fairhurst, “A theoretical and ex-
perimental study of the percussive drilling of rock, part II:
force-penetration and specific energy determination,” In-
ternational Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences &
Geomechanics Abstracts, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 335–356, 1971.
[5] W. A. Hustrulid and C. Fairhurst, “A theoretical and ex-
perimental study of the percussive drilling of rock, part III:
experimental verification of the mathematical theory,” In-
ternational Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences &
Geomechanics Abstracts, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 417-418, 1972.
[6] W. A. Hustrulid and C. Fairhurst, “A theoretical and ex-
perimental study of the percussive drilling of rock, part IV:
application of the model to actual percussive drilling,” In-
ternational Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 431–442, 1972.
[7] L. E. Chiang and D. A. Elias, “A 3D FEM methodology for
simulating the impact in rock-drilling hammers,” In-
ternational Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 701–711, 2008.
[8] C. H. Song, K. B. Kwon, M. G. Cho, J. Y. Oh, D. Y. Shin, and
J. W. Cho, “Development of lab-scale rock drill apparatus for
testing performance of a drill bit,” International Journal of
Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, vol. 16, no. 7,
pp. 1402–1414, 2015.
[9] K. B. Kwon, C. H. Song, J. Y. Park, J. Y. Oh, J. W. Lee, and
J. W. Cho, “Evaluation of drilling efficiency by percussion
testing of a drill bit with new button arrangement,” In-
ternational Journal of Precision Engineering and
Manufacturing, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1063–1068, 2014.
[10] B. Lundberg and M. Okrouhlik, “Influence of 3D effects on the
efficiency of percussive rock drilling,” International Journal of
impact Engineering, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 345–360, 2001.
[11] B. Lundberg and P. Collet, “Optimal wave shape with respect
to efficiency in percussive drilling with detachable drill bit,”
International Journal of impact Engineering, vol. 86, pp. 179–
187, 2015.
[12] X. B. Li, G. Rupert, and D. A. Summers, “Energy transmission
of down-hole hammer tool and its conditionality,” Trans-
actions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, vol. 10, no. 1,
pp. 109–111, 2000.
[13] J. W. Cho, S. Jeon, S. H. Yu, and S. H. Chang, “Optimum
spacing of TBM disc cutters: a numerical simulation using the
three-dimensional dynamic fracturing method,” Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 230–
244, 2010.
[14] W. Changming, “An analytical study of percussive energy
transfer in hydraulic rock drills,” Mining Science and Tech-
nology, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 57–68, 1991.
[15] Online Materials Information Resource: http://www.matweb.
com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID�8bc5d558f4174e6082
ddf4966e382bd6&ckck�1.
Journal of International Journal of International Journal of Smart Materials Journal of
Nanotechnology
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Corrosion
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Polymer Science
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Research
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Composites
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of
Metallurgy

BioMed
Research International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 1DQRPDWHULDOV http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at

https://www.hindawi.com

Journal of Journal of
Materials
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Nanoparticles
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

1DQRPDWHULDOV
-RXUQDORI

Advances in The Scientific International Journal of

Materials Science and Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Scientifica
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com
+LQGDZL3XEOLVKLQJ&RUSRUDWLRQ
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Biomaterials
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 KWWSZZZKLQGDZLFRP 9ROXPH http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of Journal of Journal of Journal of Journal of

Nanoscience
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Coatings
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Crystallography
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Ceramics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Textiles
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Volume 2014